In November, the monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics told us, among other things, that the unemployment rate dropped down to 4.6 percent, the lowest it has been since 2007, before the Great Recession. While that number seems to speak glowingly of both the job market and the efforts of the Obama Administration, others contend the opposite. President-elect Donald Trump, for one, is not convinced by the statistic and claims the actual number is much higher. Who is right, are they both right, or are they both wrong? Read on to find out the backstory behind the unemployment rate and what it can tell us about the economy.

History of Unemployment and Methods to Address it

While there were several ways that policymakers attempted to determine the unemployment rate in the early 20th century, the unemployment measure that exists today was not created until the 1940s, when the Census Bureau began administering the Current Population Survey. Estimates suggest that the unemployment rate reached an all-time high of 23.9 percent. This was followed by a record low of 1.2 percent in 1944 during World War II. The lowest rate not during a time of war was 2.9 percent in 1953.

Since 1948, there have been 11 observed recessions and there have been a variety of means to combat resulting high levels of unemployment, many of which have varied by president. During the second term of Harry Truman’s presidency, the first one with reliable data, unemployment was very low except for a brief recession as the economy adjusted after the war. Truman left office with an unemployment rate below 3 percent. The rate rose though during the following administration under President Dwight D. Eisenhower but passing the Federal Aid Highway Act in 1957, which paved the way for the National Highway System, helped bring the rate back down.

President John F. Kennedy inherited an unemployment rate around 6 percent and was unable to do much to affect it before his assassination, despite expanding Social Security and cutting taxes. The story of Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency was the complete opposite, with a large decrease in unemployment. This success under Johnson was the result of wartime hiring and new government projects from the War on Poverty, including Medicare and Medicaid. Following Johnson, the administrations of both Nixon and Ford saw continuously rising unemployment with the rate reaching a new post-war high of 9 percent in 1975. President Ford actually had the highest average unemployment of any president since data was officially collected, at 7.8 percent.

Jimmy Carter succeeded Ford and saw an initial decline in the unemployment rate. However, that was reversed following an oil crisis at the end of his term. This trend continued into the Reagan presidency which saw the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression at 10.8 percent at the end of 1982. Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan was ultimately able to reduce that number by half when he left office. Overall, Reagan actually had the second highest average unemployment rate, barely edging out Barack Obama. Taking the reins from Reagan was the first President Bush, who watched the unemployment rate rise steadily during his tenure.

In 1992 George H.W. Bush was replaced with President Clinton who, like Johnson thirty years earlier, saw the unemployment rate steadily decline. Under George W. Bush, the unemployment rate ticked up at the beginning of his presidency after the 9/11 attacks and a mild recession. It eventually ticked back down before starting to rise dramatically at the beginning of the Great Recession. This carried over into President Obama’s time in office, peaking at 10 percent in 2009 before steadily declining to where it now sits at 4.6 percent.

The Meaning of Unemployment

The unemployment rate is calculated with the hope of learning who does not have a job and why to help policymakers understand the state of the economy and make informed decisions. The data for calculating unemployment is derived from surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If a person has a job they are obviously counted as employed. The real discrepancy is in the unemployed category, which there are actually several different ways to measure. If someone is looking for work, but does not have a job, they are considered unemployed. However, if they are not looking for  work they are considered outside of the labor force and thus not included in unemployment figures. People living in institutions and those in the military are excluded from the survey.

The goal of the survey is to classify people age 16 and older into one of the two groups. Generally the divisions are pretty clear, however, there are a few gray areas. For example, people who are unpaid but work more than 15 hours a week for a family business are considered employed. In the case of unemployed people, the clarification is over whether they are actively pursuing a job within four weeks of the survey or would like a job but are not looking for one. Those who have looked for a job in the four weeks and are available to work are considered unemployed. The labor force, for the purpose of the unemployment measure, is considered those who are employed and those who are unemployed. Passive job searchers are not counted as part of the labor force,

Of those not included in the labor force, some are discouraged workers–those who do not think they can attain a job. A marginally attached worker is someone who has looked for a job at some point in the last 12 months but has not done so in the past four weeks. Within the marginally attached worker category is the subcategory of discouraged workers, who have not recently looked for work because they do not think they can get a job, either because they are unqualified or for another reason related to the state of the job market. The rest of the people in this category are generally out of the labor force for another reason such as attending school or taking care of a family member. In total, there are six measures of unemployment, ranging from the U1 to the U6. Of those, we use the U3, which measures the amount of people who do not have jobs as a percentage of the labor force.

The following video looks at exactly how the unemployment measure works:

How is Unemployment Measured?

Some assume the government uses the number of people on unemployment insurance each month or surveys every household to determined how many people are unemployed, but that is not actually how it works. Using unemployment insurance would only count people who are eligible or have applied for insurance, so if a person does not qualify in either of those categories they would not be counted. On the other extreme, surveying every household every month, in a process similar to the census, is impractical.

Instead, the unemployment rate is actually measured using the Current Population Survey, which started in 1940 and was taken over by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1942. In total, there are 60,000 households each month that are eligible for the survey and are organized into 2,000 physical areas. The Census Bureau then creates a survey that will incorporate 800 of these areas in order to create a representative sample to reflect the variety of people and job types across the United States. Each month, a quarter of the households in the sample are changed to ensure no household is interviewed for more than four consecutive months. These households are then taken out of the sample for eight months, before being interviewed for another four month period. In other words, three-fourths or about 75 percent of the sample remains the same from month to month and one-half or about 50 percent stays the same from year to year.

Every month, the included households are contacted and asked questions to determine whether they are employed, unemployed, or not looking for work. These interviews are done either in person or over the phone, generally the week of the 12th day of the month. During the first interview, demographic information is collected through a computerized database, which is then used to create a representative sample. Because this measure is derived from a survey and not a count of every person in the country, there is room for error. But the margin of error calculated by the BLS finds that 90 percent of the time the survey will yield an unemployment number that is within 300,000 of the results that you would find if you counted every single person. The measure also takes into account seasonal employment with rate adjustments. In no case over the last decade has the margin of error been large enough to skew the actual unemployment rate.

Neither the people asking nor those answering the questions actually determine what classification they fall under. Instead, that is determined when the answers are put into the computerized form. Critical to successfully measuring unemployment is ensuring comparable results. Due to this requirement, the interviewers are extensively trained.

Criticism of the Unemployment Rate

While the unemployment rate has steadily gone down over the last few years, and although it seems very cut and dry mathematically, the measure still has its critics. These critics include people from both sides of the political spectrum, from President-elect Trump to former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Their criticisms extend beyond the trite example that discouraged workers should also be included in the unemployment rate.

These people point to another major flaw with the rate in that it excludes many job seekers. Namely, while a person may have a job, that does not mean they are fully employed, in essence, working a full-time job that can support them. Unfortunately for these people, there are also not enough jobs that could fully employ them either. Instead, if they are employed at all, they are often forced to cobble together multiple jobs or rely on the social safety net. Moreover, while the government does measure various forms of unemployment, only one, the U3 unemployment rate, tends to get most of the attention.

Conclusion

Since the unemployment rate is calculated using data and sophisticated sampling techniques, some might think the measure is beyond partisanship. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While some of that may be political, the unemployment rate itself deliberately excludes a large portion of people to measure a very specific thing. While many do criticize the definition, it is still important to measure the number of people who do not have a job and are actively looking for work.

Despite the ambiguity, purposeful or not, the unemployment rate has been one of the most consistent barometers for measuring the health of the United States’ economy since the end of World War II. Undoubtedly better measures either exist or could be formulated, although the practicality of compiling more in-depth numbers that would have to be gleaned from a 300 million plus population is more dubious. Thus, candidates and activists can debate and denounce the merits of the unemployment rate but for now, we seem to be stuck with it, even if it does not take many of us into account.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Unemployment Rate: What the Measure Tells Us appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

For the second year in a row, Detroit, Michigan and Irvine, California are the Most Dangerous and Safest cities in the America, respectively. Law Street’s comprehensive analysis of the FBI’s latest Uniform Crime Report allowed us to rank the safest and the most dangerous big cities in the United States.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations over 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations under 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Safest Cities with populations over 200,000.

Detroit has a violent crime rate of 2,072 per 100,000 people; Irvine has a violent crime rate of 48 per 100,000 people. Looking at those statistics alone begs the question: how could two sizable cities in the same country be so radically different?

At the end of the day it comes down to pretty much one thing: the economy. While there are significantly more factors that need to be taken into consideration when trying to figure out why one city is so crime-ridden and another so relatively safe, a lot of it boils down to the economy.

Detroit currently has an unemployment rate of 14.9 percent; Irvine’s is about 4 percent. Keep in mind that the national unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8 percent, which means that while Irvine is doing pretty well, Detroit is doing very, very poorly. In Detroit, 38.1 percent of the population is below the poverty line, in Irvine it’s just 11.4 percent.

In some ways, it seems that the two cities are from two different times in American history. Detroit was once a booming manufacturing city, home of the auto industry. But the problem is that it was really only the home of the auto industry. And when it first took on that characteristic, the process required way more people to make a car than it does now. There’s also the issue of foreign automakers surpassing American brands, and the 2008 financial collapse. Long, sad story short, Detroit has not been able to subsist on just one industry for a very long time, and it shows.

Compare that to Irvine, which in many ways is the epitome of the way our economy looks now. It’s smack dab in the middle of Southern California’s answer to Silicon Valley, with a heavy concentration on technology and startup culture. Irvine is a city that has taken advantage of the new industries providing jobs in the American market, much like Detroit did, but half a century later.

Detroit’s downfall is more troubling than just the economic woes–when the city started to decline and see mass unemployment, many of those who had the resources to do so got out. Over the last decade, Detroit’s population has fallen by approximately a quarter. It’s turned into a vicious cycle–people who have the resources to leave Detroit do so because of its poor economic condition and crime. Those with financial resources leaving make the city’s economy and budget problems worse, and they can’t pay for the kind of revitalization Detroit would need, or a police force to get the crime under control. So more people leave, and the cycle continues.

Put very simply,  Irvine is safer because it has the money coming in to be that way. In addition to its regular police force, the multiple universities located within city limits have their own police forces, leading to even more of a focus on safety. There are a lot of things that separate Detroit and Irvine, and makes one clock in as the most dangerous city in the country and the other the safest. At the end of the day one of the most convincing is the economy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Detroit is the Most Dangerous City in America, Irvine the Safest appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks here at Law Street Media as we launched our crime rankings last week and are continuing our efforts to provide content that is both useful and interesting. I now have the opportunity to casually peruse the section like any other reader, and I’ve been checking it out a lot recently.

Law Street’s Crime in America presents statistics gathered from around the country, including the safest places to live, using data gathered by the FBI.

Reading up on all of this crime has forced me to think about its prevalence, the unnecessary danger of certain areas, and what it says about our society. In recent years, there has been much coverage of the huge disparity in prosperity between segments of the population, with the Occupy Wall Street movement providing a notorious example. When I say “forced me to think about,” I mean I’m reflecting on the overabundance of first world problems I have, and how little they matter in a world full of very real conflicts.

I could complain for hours about how tough it is to be six months out of law school, but I have it easy compared to many: I have a job(s) and live in a major city with tons of personal and professional opportunities. There are many people who are still searching for work, and under much more dire circumstances.

In addition, reading Crime in America serves as a reminder that there are people who are under such hardship that they view crime as the only way out of their current situations.  Every time I complained to someone about law school, I often got “there are thousands of people who would kill to be able to go to law school” in response. After an exaggerated eye roll, I would steadfastly refuse to believe this statement was fact. Then I read Crime in America, which begs the question: “Why else are people committing violent crimes?” If you read about America’s ten most dangerous cities, then you’ll see that people are facing severe unemployment and increasing poverty. There is a strong correlation between financial uncertainty and criminal activity.

When I say severe unemployment, I’m not talking about being unable to find a job in a struggling legal economy.  These people can’t get jobs in any economy, for a variety of reasons.  All of the possible reasons lead them to believe that all hope is lost, and hopelessness can lead to criminal levels of desperation.

Many people think being a lawyer is the key to some degree of success, and to an extent they are correct. That success isn’t necessarily in the juris doctorate degree, but in the education that the degree represents. You learn unparalleled skills of analysis, critical thinking, writing, interpretation, oral advocacy, and time management.  You spend three years having your brain broken down and reassembled like some modern-day Frankenstein. It’s a daunting experience, but you emerge ready to face the world with conversational legalese and a leather briefcase.

There are literally thousands of people who cannot even imagine what it’s like to earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a J.D.  There are people who, in America in 2013, do not even have the option of finishing high school.  These people are neither lazy nor stupid.  Instead, they haven’t been given the tools necessary for educational advancement. I would go so far as to guess that they have never been presented with the idea of academic success as a realistic option. It’s hard to want more from life if you have never experienced what “more” could be.

Law Street’s Crime in America puts problems into perspective, and beyond that it’s just interesting. So go read it! I’ll still complain about law school, but, you know…less.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland Security) via Wikipedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Crime Blog Really Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a GYPSY? Am I? According to a recent article by The Huffington Post, if you’re a twenty-something professional either working or job hunting, you probably are. Apparently, I am. The article examines a growing subculture developing among today’s young professionals: the Gen Y Protagonists and Special Yuppies, or GYPSYs. This sect has developed over the past few years. They’re millennials. They’re products of technology and social media. And, according to the Huff Post, they’re unhappy.

The theory is that people in their mid-twenties who are entering the job market for the first time are experiencing a sort of depression unknown to previous generations. This is, allegedly, due to the fact that they – actually, I should include myself in this – due to the fact that we were raised by people whose realities exceeded their expectations, and who embedded this self-confidence in their children. They sought stable careers at a time when the economy boomed, so many of them were pleasantly surprised when those careers brought more than just stability. They told their children the familiar mantra of you can do whatever you put your mind to.  We were told we were special as individuals. That if we played the game correctly, our lives would be whatever we dreamed. And we did dream. We imagined having it all figured out by our mid-twenties, and being gainfully and happily employed thereafter. This is a nice concept, but it might not adequately prepare us for the trials, tribulations, and heartache in the current job market. It’s the modern day romantic comedy…never as easy as it seems like it should be with a happily ever after becoming increasingly unattainable.

Twenty-somethings are finding themselves torn. Jobs are more difficult to come by than they were for their parents. Competition is fierce. You need to jump through hoops before the actual interview. You need to show humor, education, cooperation, and intelligence…all in a cover letter. And all that for an average, not-so-special position. If you do get a decent paying gig, it doesn’t measure up to The Great Story that you had written in pen. Our parents desired stability. We desire stability plus some. So, when we end up with less than that, disappointment sets in. The excitement is lost.

Let’s examine this. Is this innate discomfort that comes with doing something mundane and passion-less really a negative? I mean, it doesn’t facilitate security by the same age that our parents found it, but there might be a silver lining. It is this type of person, this eager beaver who craves more, this professional looking for the next best thing, who ends up doing more that clocking in and clocking out. They create. They build. They are the reason things like crowdfunding and The JOBs Act exist. Without this anxiety, some of the greatest companies wouldn’t have been turned into the empires that are household names today. Without delving into the legalities that are still being hemmed and hawed over, it’s great that there are options out there for those who want to explore and create other options for themselves.

So, the conclusion here is that there is nothing wrong with the ambition for personal and professional greatness, but write The Great Story in pencil. However, while keeping their eyes towards the horizons, it would do “GYPSYs” well to keep their feet on the ground, and to see every job – even if it’s not THE job – as a learning experience and opportunity.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Featured image courtesy of [Garry Knight via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Why So Serious, Gen Y? appeared first on Law Street.

Once you’ve made the decision to look for a new career, you’re halfway there. Well, not really…but it is a pretty big step. Once you’ve made the decision what do you do? Immediately start applying? Probably not. Take some time and follow a few steps before you dive into the deep end.

1.     Think about why you’re looking for a new job. Unless you’re straight out of the dorm rooms, you’re probably making the switch because you aren’t fully satisfied at your current position. Think about the things that aren’t fitting, how you can improve, and what you need from an employer in order to do so.

2.     What came first? Is it the company you’re working for or the industry that you’re in that’s the problem? A lot of people get so stuck on the hamster wheel of doing whatever is closest to their college degree or in the same field as their first job. Maybe it’s time to shake it up.

3.     Think about the next five, ten, fifteen years. Think about further than that. What do you want it to say on your business card when you retire? What skills will help you with that? Even if you take a job that isn’t 100% what you want, consider whether it might provide you with the tools for later.

4.     What are the most important things? This isn’t the same for everyone. For some people it’s the salary, for some the commute matters the most, the hours, the work environment, etc. Give some thought to which one or two aspects are your top priorities. Even if you don’t get everything, it will make the search easier if you know where your priorities are.

5.     Take breaks. Searching the countless job sites is exhausting and frustrating. Don’t just sit at your computer hitting the refresh key after you’ve applied for hours. Dedicate time to this, but take some time away and take a step back.

Happy hunting!

xo, The Capitalista

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Featured image courtesy of [kate hiscock via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Beginning the Search appeared first on Law Street.

You’re looking for a job. Maybe you’re deep into your hunt. Maybe your hunt just started. Perhaps you’re a recent grad and this is your first time in the trenches. Regardless, one thing is certain: job-hunting isn’t easy.

Even if you were expecting the transition, there are so many tough things about the uncertainty. Well, kids, have no fear. This blog, Capitalista Careers, will be here to provide a little humor, helpful tips, and solid information in even the darkest hour.

Below are my tips for how to get through the experience alive, and without stressing out yourself and your loved ones.

1.     Breathe. This might sound obvious, but really try it. Before you open up your computer and dive into the land of the unemployed and seeking, take a moment and take a few deep breaths. Remember that it will be ok, and you will find a job.

2.     Remind yourself that there is no timeline. The last time I was job-hunting, I found myself incredibly disappointed that I was not gainfully employed to my liking within two weeks. The time before that had been a very quick transition, and I had high expectations. This made the process much more stressful than it probably might have been.

3.     Talk to people. Rely on the people in your life for comfort. Talking about the stress of your situation will help. And things don’t seem as scary when they’re verbalized.

4.     Don’t talk too much. I’m all for a good vent sesh, and it really does help, but just don’t become that scary-unemployed-person-who-isn’t-fun-anymore-because-she-can’t-stop-bitching-about-the-last-interview. That doesn’t help. Seriously, you can ask my boyfriend.

5.     Don’t forget that you can be a little picky, just not too picky. You want to have high enough standards to ensure that this is a move you’ll be content with long enough to stay put for a bit.

6.     See this as an exciting new opportunity. Try to alleviate some of the tough moments by remembering that this is exciting. You’re about to start a new chapter. It can look however you want it to. Clean slate. New chance. Yada yada yada.

7.     But not necessarily the career move of your life. Unless of course it is, in which case, good for you!

So, welcome! I hope you have the best of luck in your search, and that you enjoy reading our tips.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Featured image courtesy of [LaurMG via Wikipedia]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Job Hunting Survival Guide appeared first on Law Street.

Coming off the heels of an economic recession, and in a job climate that is increasingly tenuous, there are various reasons why people apply for jobs that are: (i) seemingly beneath their skill level; (ii) not in line with their prior positions; or (iii) in brand new fields.  These reasons, to be further discussed below, should not become the sole reason to one’s consideration for a position.  Instead, it is an invitation for serious dialogue about careers vs. jobs, long-term vs. short- term goals, and attempting to achieve some semblance of a balanced life.  The frustrations that I, and others similarly situated, experience on a daily basis are indicative of a still-fragile economy, and a dialogue among this generation will serve as a catalyst for solution.

Where to begin? Well, let’s say that there was a 21-year old college senior who wanted to be a politician.  Let’s say that, because of real financial concerns, this 21-year old took a job at a defense law firm as a paralegal.  He didn’t take the job because he wanted to be a corporate lawyer, though.  Instead, the firm paid $15,000 more than a job he was offered as a political aide for a state representative.  Because of financial concerns, the 21-year old chose the job he applied for on a whim instead of the job that he was passionate about.  This dispassion led the now 24-year old to apply to law school, because that was the thing to do.  The 24-year old applies, gets accepted, moves to a different city, and eventually matriculates at a law school with an amazing reputation, both locally and nationally.  The 24-year old realizes on the third day that law school was a terrible decision, but believes that quitting is an inappropriate option.  The law student performs decently well in law school, along the way obtaining some of the most coveted internships that a law student can desire.  The student graduates law school at 27, and accepts the truth that the law will never be the professional area in which he truly thrives.  Indeed, he would be a decent attorney at best.  Never great, never game changing, never truly special.  Recognizing that mediocrity is akin to professional suicide, the 27-year old law graduate attempts to reintegrate himself into the working world, and is attempting to find his way among the plethora of options before him.  Surely, he says, with my pedigree, employers will be knocking down my door!  He applies to jobs in all of the fields in which he has experience: politics, policy, communications, marketing, sales, event planning, grassroots campaigning, and yes, the law.

He waits…

He waits longer…

He waits even longer.

And in the hours, days, weeks, and months that pass since the initial foray into a job hunt, he sees an unnerving number of rejection letters and emails clutter both his physical mailbox and inbox.

“What,” he asks, “am I doing wrong?”

How I feel about the job search.

Nothing.

The employers do not see it like that, though. Here’s what they say:

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for your application.  After carefully reviewing your resume, we see that you possess skills that are above the call of duty for the aforementioned position.  These skills, while impressive, do not fall in line with our goals in filling this position.  As such, we have decided to go in a different direction.  Your resume and professional history, however, are extremely impressive, and we have no doubt that your valuable skills will best be utilized elsewhere.

OR

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for applying to the position of ___________.  We thank you for your time in submitting your resume and cover letter to us, but we have unfortunately decided that you will not be chosen for the next round of interviews.  Indeed, among the many factors we considered why someone with your resume is applying for a job like this?  Our position is that we need someone who could potentially grow with our organization, and do not desire a transient employee who will use this position until something more specially tailored presents itself.

Those are two actual examples of correspondence that I have received during my job search.  Telephone calls are even more blunt and dismissive.

Out of sheer frustration, and in an attempt to educate those in a position to hire, I’ve thought of reasons why overqualification is not always the best reason to reject someone.  In fact, sometimes it’s lazy.

(1)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also dispassionate at best, and indifferent at worst, with my present line of work.  I’ve always thought that I could be successful in [your field], but pursued other endeavors for fear of [financial concerns, societal pressure, etc.].  I think that an entry-level position could further the initial experience I have, while also sharpening the dormant skills I gained years ago in a similar position.

(2)  I’m overqualified, but I am also busy with a passion project, or a family, or attempting to reconnect with my long-lost social life.  This position may be less demanding or less-senior than a previous position, but I know that I will value the extra time I have and use it wisely.

(3)  I’m overqualified, but this is a new venture, and I don’t want to be the party taking the reigns.  I don’t want to be the person on whom the bulk of the responsibility falls.  I want to learn, and I want to learn from you, a respected expert in your field.

(4)  I’m overqualified, but I have long-term goals, and improving my skills in this particular area will make me more well-rounded for if and when I choose to pursue those goals.  I.e., if I want to be a politician and am seeking employment in a public relations firm, it’s because I’m interested in learning about relating to the public.  I want to become a pro at drafting a press release, and learning the art of spinning an issue.

(5)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also unhappy in my current job.  The money I’m making is a nice bonus, however it really just serves as icing on an unappealing cake.  In applying to this position, I’m taking a brave step in personal growth by choosing to be happy.

The reality is that this list could continue forever.  The myriad of possibilities all lead to one truth, though: over-qualification should never be a reason to deny an applicant a position.  At the very least, they should be offered the opportunity to interview and further explain their reasoning for applying.  In my mind, the over-qualification excuse is an overly simplistic, and frankly lazy, way of cutting down the size of an applicant pool.

I recognize that I am not all knowing, though, and I am extremely interested in how others feel.  Please leave comments! If you agree with me, great, but I’m also interested in those who disagree.  That, my friends, is called a dialogue, and as long as we’re respectful and professional we can get to the root of the problem.

So comment below!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Gideon Tsang via Flickr]

All Housewives .gifs provided with permission by T. Kyle MacMahon from Reality TV .gifs, because Bravo makes everything less serious.)

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Overqualification is the New “It’s Not Me, It’s You.” appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.